When bush comes to a shove http://parallel-youniversity.com/

and this good economic news that comes from a spiritual, legal approach that fans of David Icke can grok

That is why after more than eight months there has been no investigation, and the government has responded so vitriolically to growing calls for a public inquiry—issuing threats to silence its critics and lurid warnings of new terror attacks to divert and disorient the public.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/nyt-m22.shtml

Will we ever hear the whole truth? It's marvellous that what has for months been restricted to slummy Internet neighborhoods is at last inching its way into TV Land and mainstream newspapers.

I expect the entire affair will instill in many, myself included, a new respect for the philosophy and principles of Attorney General John Ashcroft. In particular, I'm thinking of Ashcroft's program of shipping terrorist suspects to Egypt and other countries where torture is sanctioned as a path - the only path we are told - to the truth. Then again it might be expedient to conduct the questioning in New York.

But the anthrax story, now practically ignored, poses as many questions as 9/11 and is as potentially disastrous for Bush & Co:

As few as 20 scientists may have had the combination of technical knowledge and access to secret anthrax stocks—maintained illegally by the US government in violation of international treaty obligations—required to perpetrate the attacks. Yet the FBI continues to claim that it has made no progress in the investigation and that no suspects are being actively targeted.

This cover-up has a clear political motivation: either the perpetrator is an individual with powerful friends in high places in the Bush administration, whose influence is stalling the probe, or the perpetrator is actually a US government agency—in which case the anthrax mailings to two top Senate Democrats constitute an attempted political coup against the official opposition party.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/may2002/nyt-m22.shtml

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=6609&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

As it is, they let him skate on by...and he has the effrontery to write this dreck after they let him rant? Typical anti, to the core...

For example:

Dr. Mathias: One issue bothers me more than the others and I predict it will cause you the greatest problems. Those who make profits will defend those profits, and you will not know who they are. They will come to you with a wide variety of arguments, many of them extremely well articulated by people who are being paid. All I can draw on to explain this is the extreme effectiveness of the lobbyists for the tobacco industry - and you knew who they were. You will not know who the lobbyists are for maintaining illegal drugs. I wish you luck with that. That is one problem that you must address. You will face pressure from people whose livelihoods depend on drug use. The perceptions of those people may well be biased, though unintentionally so. I am not saying that any of those people are deliberately producing untruths. They are giving you truth, but from their perspective, which may be limited and biased in ways that even they do not understand.

As you read on, you learn that the 'people whose livelihoods depend on drug use' that the Good Doctor refers to are the prohibitionists.

Senator Kenny: You asked us to watch carefully for who is benefiting or who has an interest when they come before us. You said it would be very difficult for us to spot the people who benefited from drugs, although I do not recall any dealers coming before us, at least not yet. We have had people come before us who said they have used drugs. I would like some help on how we spot the people who benefit from drugs. We do see some people who are in the "user-catching industry," if you will. We see signs of a huge industry in the States, although I am not sure if it starts with building more prisons and then they hire prison guards and then they hire police to fill the prisons and so on and so forth. We can spot an industry there. Could you help the committee on how to determine the interests of the people before us? Perhaps start by telling us yours.

Dr. Mathias: First, I would have to declare an interest in that my son, Gordon Mathias, ran for the B.C. Marijuana Party in the last provincial election. He felt that the laws were wrong, and he felt that going through the democratic process was the way to express his opinion. As a parent, that is a potential conflict for me. I personally am not a user. As a public health person, I think there are much safer ways to get the benefits, particularly as we get older. I think the stresses in our lives become different and we can manage them differently. That is certainly my perspective. The fact that people's income, employment or security is based on the industry does not make what they say invalid. It does mean that you must look at the perspective from which they come. Senator Kenny: Are you suggesting that we should have almost a short protocol for each witness? After we qualify them, should we ask them, "Could you please declare your interests, and then, once we know what your interests are, we will judge your testimony accordingly?" Dr. Mathias: Certainly. In all peer-reviewed medical literature now, at the end of articles there must be a declared conflict of interest indicating whether you have received any financial gain. It applies even with the most honourable of people. I do not think anyone is trying to give you misinformation, at least not in this group. However, it needs to be interpreted from that perspective. I would suggest that that is not an unreasonable thing to do at all.

Not unreasonable at all.

Oh ... If this is true, then what's the big deal about making this the law? Of course, the author knows this is not true. Plenty of Canadians go to jail for possession. Notice the way a vague "charged" is used in place of the more offensive and concrete "jail" or "prison." Remember: when prohibitionists fail to mention jail when talking about marijuana, it is no accident. Rub their nose in it.

At present, the law plays the role of a moral deterrent

Right: it is all about misplaced religious convictions, a "moral" concern. When you're called on your lies and illogic, claim divine mandate. These Janie Canuck cookie-cutter moralists are little better than medieval inquisitors: to 'save' your soul (and the inquisitor's career), you will be enthusiastically tortured until you confess. Why, heaven and hell depend on it!

Canadian Senator Pierre Claude Nolin, chairman of the special committee:

Mr. Nolin said the committee heard many times from those who believe decriminalizing marijuana is morally wrong. "Moral is not exactly the kind of scientific evidence we're looking for," he said.

[Canada: Pot Smokers Gain Senate Backers, May 3, 2002 http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v02/n845/a06.html ]

'"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." — William Colby former Director of the CIA

The CIA, Insider Trading and the World Trade Center Terror Attack

thanks!

It is obvious that the death of democracy is the ultimate goal of the empire.

Colin Mangham’s testimony to the Senate Committee can be found here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/Com-e/ille-e/06evb-E.htm#Dr. Colin R. Mangham,

Regarding his comments in the posted article, several points standout needing attention. First, is his emphasis on youth, “the low level of respect and hope senators have for our children and youth…”, “youth achievement, youth employment…” , “an insult to our youth.” Indeed, Colin believes that youth and children are at the very root of why prohibition ‘supposedly’ must continue. Robert Sharp of the Drug Policy Alliance would argue that it is the illegality of cannabis which threaten youth because the unregulated environment doesn’t have age controls, making pot easier to obtain than alcohol. Even the Canadian Medical Association is against prohibition because saddling a young person with a criminal record affects their career opportunities, which may mean they earn less, and as there appears to be a relationship between one’s income and health, then the criminal record can reduce one’s health.

The Senate Committee did not have a bias as Mangham complains. They sought to obtain information from a variety of sources, then winnow it down to agreed upon, medically established truths. Mangham’s own testimony waffled on facts, and cited prohibitionist information that already had been voiced by other barnacles clinging to the sunken prohibitionist ship. In Richmond, the Senators didn’t suffer fools well, if falsehoods were voiced, the Senators challenged the witness to provide authoritative data to overturn facts, which the committee had agreed.

Mangham doesn’t point out the many social ills associated with prohibition, his prohibition merely has smiling and happy youths. What about people suffering debilitating diseases? What about the organized crime? What about laws based upon real injury to another person or their property? What about resources being directed to interdict gardening operations instead of going to books for libraries? What about the vast sums spent on prosecuting and incarcerating instead of going to genuine youth programs, not for rich communities, but the Inuit and Native Communities where gas sniffing is rife?

More neutral in tone was Dr. Anne Vogel of the Gilwest Clinic in Richmond. She treats heroin patients. Hepatitis C and HIV are significant problems in injection drug users. She explained that the only commonality of drug users that she has seen is that they’ve suffered abuse be it as children, or in relationships. Also, they often have criminal backgrounds and have mental health problems. Speaking with her patients she believed that abuse of alcohol was more often the route to using heroin than cannabis. From her perspective as a medical health officer cannabis had no discernable adverse effect on the community. Few people that she had asked prior to the hearing had strident views opposing cannabis legalization. She has never thought of drug use as a moral issue, it is strictly a health issue. She has served on several committees, and has found that through clear, one-on-one discussion, most people can appreciate her view that drug use is overwhelmingly a health issue. Senator Carney asked Dr. Vogel to clarify the procedure her clinic uses in treating a patient. First, the patient undergoes an extensive assessment to determine their mental and physical health. Then doctor and patient work to develop a strategy to stabilize the patient’s life. Over time results are measured and quantified. The success of her clinic brings more people than can be treated, with no similar services available in neighboring White Rock, Surrey or Delta, only Richmond residents can attend. Interestingly, once a patient has been stabilized with methadone, most of their criminal activities are curtailed. As a month supply of methadone costs only $100, it is in the community’s interest to have treatment services available. If a person is on Social Assistance, the cost of the treatment is covered.

No prohibitionist, John McIntyre, of the BC Civil Liberties Association, argued strenuously that drug laws are unjustifiable. The BCCLA promotes personal autonomy, and criminal law must be linked to harm done to others or to the property of others. It is not for the state to dictate or impose the ‘good life’. Criminal sanctions cannot be supported. Among the deleterious effects of prohibition are giving of criminal records, even being arrested and later being released without charge can lead to people being refused entry into the US. Criminal subcultures arise disdaining the rule of law. Criminal Industry evolves to produce and supply prohibited goods. Drug users become marginalized. Health costs rise, particularly through the sharing of needle spreading infectious diseases. Taxes are not collected. Law enforcement costs expand. The BCCLA maintains that prohibition’s failure is clear, and that legalizing drugs, starting with Cannabis is the proper next step.

Compassion Club operator Phillip Lucas blasted Health Canada for its recent debacle regarding the Flin-Flon pot, and for its guidelines for approving patients to use medical marijuana. Mr. Lucas ran his compassion club in Oak Bay, near Victoria, but was busted after a thief stole the club’s medicine. The police knew the thief, who wasn’t charged, while Phil faces distribution charges. Mr. Lucas pointed out that the busting of compassion clubs in California, and here in Canada, illustrates that law enforcement mindset is similar. More compassionate policies are found in some of the European nations. He wants the Senate Committee’s finding to influence parliament, and not to have the results idle with Le Dain Commission report. The principal improvement Mr. Lucas wanted to see from Health Canada is that the decision to use cannabis should be made between a patient and their doctor. Presently, Category 1, or terminal patients with 12 months or less to live, may obtain an exemption by seeing their physician. Category 2, or very sick people, need approval from their physician and a specialist. Category 3, not quite as sick people, need their physician and two specialists to sign before a exemption may be approved. Usually, it takes 3 to 6 months of evaluation before Health Canada approves an application, and considering the waiting lists to see specialists, the entire process can take a couple years. Also, Health Canada demands that patients try a number of other solutions prior to using cannabis. For an epileptic patient such as Terry Parker, this demand might mean a lobotomy! Mr. Lucas’ club uses two main growers of cannabis for 70% of their supply. The club has rules including no reselling the cannabis, and no use of the cannabis nearby the club. Health Canada has provisions for properly exempted patients to be able to grow their cannabis or have another person grow it for them. This strategy doesn’t use economy of scale or experience, Mr. Lucas would prefer seeing larger enterprises fill the need. The Senators urged Mr. Lucas to provide them with recommendations, which Health Canada could use to better assist ill Canadians.

Most strident in their call for legalization was Alan and Eleanor Randell, parents of Peter who died at age 19 in 1993 after using Heroin once. They had pictures of Peter around their necks, as they described him as a voracious reader who was influenced by Jazz Musicians, and authors such as Jack Keravoc and William Boroughs. Believing that heroin might expand his creativity, Peter fatally used it only once. Alan writes many letters to the editor decrying prohibition. Is prohibition to protect the user? No, it drives up the cost and makes adulterated drugs likely. Is prohibition to protect the community? No, the community suffers because health problems spread, and crime is increased due to the expense of the drugs. Mr. Randell believes prohibition is to deflect the public’s attention away from other problems. Should be government dictate our every action? Does the government have the right to make and enforce any law? The war on drugs is a war on people. Pressure from the USA, or because treaties were signed, isn’t justification to continue to enforce unjust laws. Considering the limited number of people viewing the hearing, the applause for the Randells was thunderous.

Actually considering that the Senate Committee’s only stop west of Saskatoon was in Richmond, then both the attendance and especially the media coverage was appalling. For the portion of the Senate Committee Hearings that I saw, there was approximately 15 to 20 people viewing the proceedings, while the Senate and their entourage comprised approximately 10 people. Meanwhile, no stories appeared in the Vancouver Sun, The Province, or even the local newspaper, The Richmond Review.

Nonetheless, I came away from the hearings convinced that this Senate Committee will accomplish some tangible steps toward changing the law within Canada. I say this from the point of view gleaned through speaking with the Committee’s librarian, and though my friend and mentor, Randy Caine. The committee’s two goals are to be rigorous and transparent. These are modest and achievable goals. Essentially, they seek to garner solid evidence, quantifiable, and disseminated by professionals qualified and thoroughly familiar with the methods used to procure the data. Second, this information is meant to be fully accessible to Canadians. This may mean for the average person that the committee generates news pertaining to the subject. For those wishing to further explore the subject, a voluminous webpage documents all the testimony provided to the committee, as well as some corroborating evidence. This is a fantastic resource for anyone keen on evaluating the various arguments pertaining to drug use.

My optimism comes from the fact that with this compendium of knowledge ostensible to all, the many misconceptions, propaganda and outright lies will be exposed to the glare of the established truth. It’s cat out of the bag, the genie out of the bottle, there’s no turning back - the truth can’t be deigned.

This strength of truth was demonstrated several times when Senators Nolin, Kenny, and Carney challenged some of the witnesses testifying before them. Chiefly, bogus statements were provided by the prohibitionists taking the stand. Jim Kelly, director of the Richmond Alcohol and Drug Action Team, spoke disparagingly of the various harms inflicted by cannabis use, even asserting that chronic users suffered flashbacks up to 6 months after abstaining, due to the fact that THC is stored in fatty tissue which may become liberated during exercise or stress. Senator Nolin dismissed this, clarifying that some cannabinoid methabolates may be liberated into the bloodstream, but they themselves have no psychotropic effects. Expert medical testimony previously provided to the committee pegged the maximum time that stored THC could be liberated at no more than 27 days. Further, in light of Mr. Kelly’s testimony, Senator Nolin suggested that Mr. Kelly receive and peruse the established facts obtained by the committee. Then, Mr. Kelly’s credentials were to be subject to scrutiny. After completing his time on the stand Mr. Kelly departed immediately, no doubt to salve his bruised ego.

It wasn’t that the committee wanted to belittle anyone. Senator Carney was particularly adept at thanking the witnesses for their time and opinion. But if one is testifying before the committee, false information, poor quality information, and lies will be dealt with; the committee’s time isn’t intended to suffer fools easily. Further, it is expected that if one is testifying, a cursorily examination of the Committee’s Discussion Paper is essential.

Nonetheless, it didn’t stop Richmond RCMP Superintendent Ward Chapham. After spewing arrest data and spelling out the RCMP position, he digressed to a story involving his daughter who was just learning to read, and the health warnings posted at a check out at the local corner store pertaining to smoking cigarettes. His daughter asked why people smoke if it is bad for them. Mr. Chapham replied that they cannot control themselves, that they are addicts. Senator Colin Kenny who has extensively studied tobacco as part of previous Senate committee asked Mr. Chapham if he knew the morality statistics associated with smoking tobacco and marijuana. Mr. Chapham didn’t. Diseases associated with smoking tobacco kills approximately 45000 Canadians annually, while marijuana has zero deaths. Mr. Chapham pointed out that as an undercover agent he had never seen a marijuana smoker use a filter. Senator Kenny replied that filters are nothing more than a marketing tool used to generate a false security in smokers. Filters themselves don’t save the smoker from the harm of tobacco smoke. Throughout Mr. Chapham’s testimony, he lamented that alcohol and tobacco were too available, gambling was too accessible, that police need to protect people from their own urges. Further, he maintained that in his opinion marijuana was a gateway to harder drugs. This point was immediately challenged by Senator Nolin, who clarified that their work had failed to find any link between marijauna and harder drug use, except that the source or dealer of the drugs could offer or entice one to experiment further. Interestingly, during his reading of the Richmond arrest statistics, Mr. Chapham clarified that the lower numbers pertaining to heroin busts don’t mean the problem has decreased, rather police personnel have been assigned to Green Teams at the expense of interdicting heroin. Throughout his testimony, protecting children was his mantra. He insisted that through further integration of all available government services, like having police in elementary schools, that a firm line of defense could be established. By tweaking the system, trying harder, sending a consistent stern message that drug use was unacceptable, he thought all drug use could be managed. Later, Mr. Chapham obliquely commented that the average Richmond citizen is so well protected by the police that they aren’t exposed to many unnamed evils and harms, which remained only the providence of the police to thwart. The collected activists looked among themselves perplexed by the comment, until Hillary Black said she was the dark force, which put us into stifled laughter. As Mr. Chapham departed from the witness chair, a lone person sardonically clapped, cognizant of the damage Mr. Chapman had done to undermine the prohibitionist position.

If the drug war ended tomorrow there would still be prohibitions lerking about.

Where did this stat come from?

"Fewer than 10 per cent of Canadians used marijuana in the past year."

I'll bet 10 percent of Canadians have smoked in the last HOUR!

ICBS